make sure that equity is not being tokenized when we're talking about the african-american community, brown communities and yellows. i want to make sure that everything is incorporated right. when we look at this topic, this is something that we're in a position to be leading for the nation when we're talking about san francisco. and as much as we're able to talk about union, different aspects of interests when it comes to equity, because we're talking business here at the end of the day, we're also talking about restorative justice, because there are those who are locked up, dead in the grave, that probably can't come back. and sometimes when it's white, it's right. when it's black, it's black. we talk about this with cannabis. this is one of the legislations we can do. as the lady spoke about, restorative justice is in paper what this legislation. i just hope you take an important example that you guys are going to be leading when we're talking about business and we're talking about this taboo

that we're dealing with. because it's affecting us as a whole. and also for those in the audit, we pay attention to those in the community. there's still people dying right now that's approach to approach you guys. they feel the situation is not going to be resolved. personally trying my best to be as optimistic as i can towards this opportunity for us to be able to do better business, to bring better business to the community. also to show the market that it can be done. if we're going to start, we want to start right here in san francisco at the grass root level and with you guys. very appreciative of what you've done. we're talking about red lining. we understand it takes time to go for any conditional use, but time is money. most of us ain't got that money or time. some people dying every day. so just keep that in consideration. i appreciate it.

>> thank you very much for your comments. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is angela white. and i am here -- i work with success centers. we serve the marginalized communities. and we are actually doing the work. i am so happy to hear about this equity report card. i work in placing people in jobs, often who is overlooked are those who have gone to college. and we do have a demographic in our community of folks who have gone to college and have been overlooked for jobs and positions. and so i just wanted to say thank you for this work. and i'm looking forward to placing some of those folks and finding out, you know, what this report card is. i'm anxious to hear it. because i see it and i know what

it is. because i'm on the ground floor doing the work. but i just want to say thank you very much. >> thank you, miss white. next public comment, please. >> commissioners, first of all, i want to thank you for and thank the planning department staff for taking the time to look back and to reflect on what they do, how they do their work and who they are and who is represented within the staff of this commission and how it looks like or does not look like our city. on page 25 of the report, it was interesting to look at where the people of color are within the department. clerical staff is 90% people of color. as you move up, professional staff, other analysts, 30% or so

are white. the rest are people of color. and when you get to the senior management, you are looking at only 10% of senior management being people of color. what does -- and then when you ask the questions, that are in the report, and you look at how different people respond to those questions, you see that senior staff don't see as much racial tensions or racial issues happening within the department, as do others. so i think this is a first maybe moment or glimpse to start talking about how that can change, both in how people look at what's happening in the department, but also how the department is composed. who is allowed to move up. who is getting from the very top level, from director, but on down to your planner fives, your planner fours. who is getting those positions and how does that reflect our

city and how does that get reflected when planner goes out and do planning work within the neighborhoods. so again thank you. i know that this isn't always easy, that this is hard work that needs to be done. it's a good time to start it. >> thank you, mr. marty. any other public comment on this item? okay. public comment is now closed. commissioner johnson. >> thank you. first, i just want to express my deepest gratitude to planning staff, and in particular claudia for your love, your passion and dedication to seeing and shepherding this work. it is some of the hardest work

that we, in particular the people of color, are called to do. it has potential to be the most transformational. i'm so grateful that this is happening. just to talk a little bit about our training and just how thinking about this as a commissioner. you know, i think when assuming the position of commissioner, it was not lost on me that commissions, preservation, planning and all of the spheres in which we touch were meant to represent the public and be part of a public process. and for most of their existence didn't do so. they were explicitly and implicitly exclusionary. and not only that, but they were used as tools for oppression and exclusion. so as people who have taken on the awesome responsibility to be part of these systems, it is our awesome responsibility and a requirement to step into our role and not only being an ally,

not only thinking it's a good idea, but actually being held accountable to turning the tide and making sure that we're advancing racial justice and equity. i think achieving racial equity, which, you know, i love the definition, a condition where one's racial identity has no influence on how one fares in society, should be every single one of our personal goals in the world and our spheres of influence, because it's going to take all of us. it's not just a nice thing. it's actually required to be relevant in the 21st century, to have competency in, to practice. and it is a lifelong practice. and it's how we honor the positions that we hold as planners, as preservationists, as community leaders, by doing that work. and so i'm really -- this report was incredibly thoughtful. i think the first step in that work is looking at the numbers, understanding where you're

starting at. and then making an actionable, accountable plan for how we're going to turn the tide. how we analyze, how we hire, how we're using our spheres of influence to advance this work. and i just -- you know, want to underline that we have all kind of taken up the task of doing the personal work, the work as a body, as a commission. the work as a department to join our other folks in the city family, to do this work, so that we can, as a city, become a leader for racial justice and equity. and this is a community conversation. we can't actually do that work alone. actually this is an invitation to members of the public, who come to these hearings week after week, who actually exert influence in your own neighborhoods and communities here at the commission and city hall. if you're a project sponsor, if you're a community organization,

do a racial justice and equity training. read the color of law or how to be antiracist, because it's not good enough to be antiracist. we need to work to advance these values, which i think are the values of our great city. the city of san francisco. >> thank you, commissioner. commissioner richards. >> so i'm going to defer the inside the department stuff to stuff that we can control. i know that we're going to get there. it's just going to take time. i want to focus on the external portion. i think all of the work we're doing here is a carefully placed bet that's going to yield results ten times over. i'm fully behind this effort. i didn't read the color -- i didn't read the other books that commissioner johnson referred to, but i read the real estate state. actually when i saw how the

federal inspectors came out and they took different blocks and different cities and rated them "a" through "f." italians got this rating, african-americans got that rate, it was based on kind of like the rundown-s in of the block, didn't matter if it was true or not, it matter who lived there. it fed into the whole redevelopment scheme a decade or two later. i think -- so i'm convinced, i mean, there was absolutely red lining. there's absolute proof of it. it's time we do something about it. now the devil is in the details. so the first thing i think that i'd like to see, after the historic preservation element, and the general plan, a racial and social equity element in our general plan. i have mentioned that in the training. i want to make sure that every project that we look at, actually has a racial and social

equity lens. so what i'd like to understand is, when we have a development, i want to make sure that we understand what different classes of folks, based on the table on page 15, are able to afford those units that are being -- that are being either market-rate or b.m.r. units, they're either the a.d.u.s or the junior a.d.u.s. we have people from chinatown come here and say, oh, the skyscraper going up and 50% of b.m.i. most people in chinatown aren't at 50%. i'm zoning without having some level of financing to get those people in the past discriminated against into those units to be inclusionary is key. otherwise it's just talk. [applause] >> thank you. i support what you're saying. >> i suggest the department do a lookback on the development that we've already had in the upzoned area and do a sampling to see

who bought, who wented those unit -- who rented those units. we need to get back to having some real inclusion. so show me the data. don't just tell me upzoning is going to make everything inclusionary, when i see that african-americans on the median make $48,500. they're not going to afford a market-rate apartment or b.m.i. unit. how are we actually going to rewrite that part of history that i'm actually ashamed of. we still have from redevelopment, certificates of preference still outstanding after what, 40 years of redevelopment. i mean, come on, folks. our record sucks here. we need to start addressing the stuff that we should have addressed decades ago. in terms of income disparity, we're on par with uganda in terms of the stratification of who makes what in this city. as a former c.e.o. of a company

that i worked at said freelance is -- san francisco is a train wreck. the elephant in the room is state intervention. so when we talk about all of this stuff, that we squeeze it through the knot hole backwards with s.b.50 and s.b.3430 coming out of san francisco, we knee to let senator chu and assemblyman king know we want to work with you on what you're doing. we want to understand how it actually benefits these people, that we want it to benefit. not just create units for more white rich people to move in, who work in tech. sorry, that's just what's going to happen. i'm telling you. when i say each project needs to have an evaluation, i want to see this project has 26 units, 20 or market-rate, six are b.m.r. and take a look at the racial categories that we have here on page 15.

and you show me how each in the racial category is going to afford those units. i think that's key. stop telling me market rate is going to solve all of the problems of inclusion. it's bullshit. >> thank you, commissioner. missioner koppel. >> thank you, chair. this item has been long overdue. something that comes to mind was our recent mayor's inauguration in front of this building at city hall. i remember there was sermons given by a rabbi, sermons given by a preacher. we had the san francisco gay mens' choir and chinese dragon dancers. i just sat there -- i was sitting next to commissioner johnson that day saying i love this city, these are the things i like to see where i live and spend my money. so just i want to thank the mayor and her leadership in just creating this office in the first place. long overdue. i wanted to recognize sister

ford, sister gomez and sister hernandez for coming by today with their valuable comments. and you may look up here and see what you're seeing right now. but i hope you can see past this guy and see the people i represent. the people that get up early in the morning, go to work, go to work sometimes life-threatening jobs. and people like me have been in this position, out the job sites, in the office, advocating for the rights of our members. the first thing i did when i got in the office, i printed out our entire membership sheet, took a look at who lived in the city, the racial background and makeups of who we were employing. and again this is just a tiny sliver in what's going on citywide. but we're doing what we can and at least our specific trade to advance disadvantaged neighborhoods. and make this as equitable as possible. we've been paying men and women the same for 125 years. everyone gets treated the same. everyone gets paid the same.

everyone has the same benefits. everyone works the same working conditions. it's pretty much the definition of equality, as much as it can be on our job sites, in our industry. and it's something i've taken very seriously. i've been showing up to city build, i've been talking to the classes. i've been encouraging them to show up, get good grades. don't miss one class. we want to see you make every class, we want to see you get an average of a "b." and then we will let you bypass our test. we have direct-to-interview process agreement with city build, something i'm extremely proud of. a lot of times certain people couldn't pass our exam to get to the interview stages. if they can show up every day for 12 weeks and get a b average at city build, we're going to interview them. let me just say the numbers have gone through the roof, 94214 especially. we have more applicants than ever. we have more women applicants than ever. we have a woman's club. we have a chinese cultural club,

latino cultural club. we've had a float in the gay pride parade for three years running, which i'm extremely proud of. i'm doing as much as i can with my industry to do the right thing. >> thank you, commissioner. i will just add that during our training, this training was specifically about racial and social equity. we did talk a lot about intersectionality. i was in a small group with a fellow commissioner from historic preservation. and we did talk quite a bit about gender issues in this space. so the numbers that will martine brought up when it comes to gender, in terms of the leadership of the department are also not great. so i'm actually confident that in building the framework, that is equitable, that advances folks and provides professional

development and opportunity. the intersectionality of oppression will get addressed for folks who have been kept out across the board. so, you know, the concept that when you solve the issue for the folks who are at the bottom, you also solve for others is strong. and so i'm really glad that we're doing this work. i'm glad that everybody is super engaged and reading and evolving. and i'm also glad that we have so much support from the public. thank you very much, miss flores and miss jones. thank you, director ram, for support of this very important work. >> thank you, madam president. i just want to take a moment to thank particularly claudia who has been passionate about this work for a very, very long time and thank all of you for your support. it's important work. i know there's a lot more to do. and i take your point about the leadership of the department

very seriously. and i will make sure that in the coming months that my successor, i'm sure, will take that very seriously as well. we're asking for an action today and the direction to staff that claudia mentioned. we are hoping for an action today. >> yes. i also want to know, i noted it this morning, that i believe this is the first time we have a majority female planning commission ever in san francisco. if anybody wants to correct me, please do so. since i've been here, since i have lived in san francisco, which is a very long time. this is the first time. i think it's really appropriate that we're voting on this today. so thank you. commissioner johnson. >> so i make a motion to adopt the resolution and enact phase one of the racial and social equity plan. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. there's a motion that has been

seconded to adopt the adoption phase one plan. on that motion, commissioner? >> aye. >> commissioner johnson? >> aye. >> commissioner richards? >> aye in >> commissioner president melgar? >> aye. >> it passes 5-0. [applause] item 13. case number 2019. 107662 pca for the affordable housing and educator housing streamlining program, planning code amendment. >> good afternoon, commissioners. audrey maloney, planning department staff. i'm going to do a quick check to see if supervisor fewer's staff is in the room yet. yep. ian is here to speak on the ordinance before staff presentation. >> hello. >> hello, president melgar.

good afternoon, commissioners. ian fergosi with sandra lee fewer's office. thank you so much for having me today. the legislation before you today is a small tweak to a much larger initiative co-sponsored and passed recently by 76% of voters in the recent election. i first want to just talk a little bit about why we authored this critical initiative. and, you know, why it's so important and we're so happy that it's been enthusiastically supported by san franciscans. we know the housing if the crisis, we need to create more affordable housing in every city. as you know, san francisco is exceeding the arena goals for market-rate housing. we're falling fall short of our goals for low and moderate-income housing. in fact, as of last year, the

city had already created 96% of our market housing needed to make the goals. only produced 30% of the necessary affordable units to meet our goals for low, extremely low and moderate-income housing. so in order to close this gap we've been working to provide more funding for affordable housing and also make it easier and faster to build that affordable housing. the board of supervisors has been aggressively pursuing new funding sources for this affordable housing. this includes legislation that our office, that supervisor fewer recently authored and passed, which allows -- actually allocates 50% of excess erath funds, which the city receives back from the state for affordable housing. and this legislation actually added $70 million in additional funds for affordable housing, just in this year's budget

alone. it's going to continue to add tens of millions more every year. as you also know, the board recently passed legislation from supervisor haney, after receiving the support of this body to increase the jobs housing linkage fee and provide hundreds of millions of dollars of funding for affordable housing. as well this recent election, along with prop e the board of supervisors and the mayor work together to put this $600 million bond on the ballot. i know a lot of you worked on that process together, with all of us. and that was approved by 71% of the voters. so we are really thrilled with how receptive the voters were to these really big affordable housing measures. and all of these proposals are going to help us address the biggest barriers to affordable housing, you know, a lack of city funding. and to address some of these other barriers, other than funding, that have been

identified by affordable housing non-profits, our office and our colleagues worked with stakeholders to develop and pass the affordable homes for educators and families now initiative, which, of course, later became prop e to make it easier and faster to build fard in neighborhoods across the city, by doing all of the following. rezoning all large, private and public lots citywide in order to allow 100% affordable housing projects by right, without demolishing existing housing or touching it public parks. also waiving density restrictions for affordable housing projects and allowing up to three additional stories of height through the state and local density bonus programs, creating an educator housing pilot program, created in partnership with educators and affordable housing, that allows for continued flexibility over time, in order to amend, if necessary, to as the teacher

needs evolve. also using the same educator housing definition that voters also approved in the housing bond, in order to provide $20 million in seed funding for educator housing projects. so this really ensures that the city is putting our public money where our mouth is in order to keep our educators in the city. and also eliminating the conditional-use authorizational process for 100% affordable housing and educator housing projects. and requiring the projects be approved within a strict timeline. so our office began working on this legislation early this year, in order to make it easier to build affordable housing in outer neighborhoods like the richmond, that have seen little investment in affordable housing. it actually really builds out of the success of the sali legislation, which i'm you're familiar with, that former supervisor jane kim passed last year, in order to make it principally permitted to build

affordable housing in service, arts and industrial districts. we also worked closely with the united educators of san francisco, in order to develop a pilot program for educator housing that would serve the needs of educators in san francisco across a wide range of both income levels and household sizes on land, that is owned by either the school district or the city college district. we really believe no one understands the needs of our educators better than the educators themselves. that's why we're proud to have partnered with them on this initiative. so in order to ensure that these projects serve the diverse housing it needs of educators in san francisco, the ordinance currently requires that at least 30% of units in an educator projects are two-bathroom units and that 20% are three-bedroom units. it was really important when we were developing this, it was important to the teachers that

projects don't end up just being made up of studios and one-bedroom units, as this would exclude a sizable proportion of their educator workforce. many of them who live with their families. so the legislation today, that's before you, changes this unit mix, so that 50% of all units are two bedrooms or larger. and so rather than providing or requiring a set percentage of three-bedroom units. so this is going to allow for some more design flexibility, while still ensuring that projects are not exclusively for single educators. it's also going to allow the school district working with the educator community to make the decision about the specific unit mix on a site-by-site basis. and this is going to benefit projects like the one -- projects in the pipeline like the one at the francis scott key annex, for example, that do not have enough three-bedroom units in order to meet the 20%

threshold. both the teachers' union and our office and i know many other elected are looking for a more family friendly city in san francisco. this includes prioritizing affordable family housing and keeping our educators in the city that we serve. so we're excited to see also new funding sources that are merging right now, and becoming available in order to build housing for our educators, including both at the state level and with this local affordable housing bond. and we really can't wait to see this work and to see more affordable homes being built in every neighborhood in san francisco. so thank you very much for your time. and we hope to have your support. >> thank you. >> so again audrey merlone. the proposed ordinance would amend the planning code to require half of residential units in educator housing projects, to have two or more bedrooms and to eliminate the

requirement that educator housing projects have a minimum number of three bedroom units. this is an amendment to proposition e, as he said, which passed this past november 5th. the department has received two letters of support for the proposed ordinance, one letter is from the united educators of san francisco and the other is from mid-penn housing. the department recommends that the commission approve the proposed ordinance. the department supports the overall goals of this ordinance, because it will allow for the construction of future educator housing projects. it will also ensure dwelling unit mixed requirements and it will benefit the educators meant to occupy the housing. additionally, the dwelling unit mixed standards proposed in the ordinance are in closer alignment with the own requirements, in zoning districts that regulate those bedroom mixes. this concludes staff presentation. i'm available for questions as is kate connor. thank you. >> thank you, audrey. we will now take public comment on this item. i don't have any speaker cards.

oh, wait. yeah. anastasia has a speaker card. anybody else who wants to speak, you can do so now. hi. >> hi. good afternoon, everyone. legislative aide for supervisor gordon mar. we are really excited about this legislation. as you all know, we have the first educator housing project in our district. so we're really excited by the results of prop e, the overwhelming support to streamline both educator housing and 100% affordable housing. in the past year, we've been working really closely with mid penn, the affordable housing developer, and really closely with the community. we've really seen a cultural shift and really support for this kind of housing that's just gotten so urgent. we are also, you know, been following the lead of educators and trust in the educators that they know what kind of housing is needed. so we've been in close communications with uasf particularly on this

project. we really support this legislation. we want to ensure that this francis scott key project qualifies for this prop e streamlining, we're excited to bring the housing projects online in many months, if not a year earlier. as my colleague ian mentioned, we'll continue our commitment to find the funding to secure the funding for this project and the future project for educator housing. this really does represent a big turning point. so i urge you to support this legislation. thank you very much. >> thank you, miss kwan. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon,. we represent over 6500 educators throughout the district. i believe that i speak not only -- for not only educators, about you for san franciscans, with overall the most recent elections in which 70% of voters

said that affordable housing needs to be a priority. and this is really exciting for us, exciting for uasf. in particular that we're moving into the next phase. we're meeting with potential partners throughout the -- at the state level to bring in funding and develop funding sources to ensure that this project happens. and that we do have educator housing. the approval, as i said, was overwhelming. and what it means also for us and what it means to our community, this community in san francisco, they want educators, not only to teach, but they want them to lead in this community. because we understand if we don't have a stable working force, we understand the cost that it will happen at the school level, the instabilities that it would have. we see it happening day in and day out. and in terms of the effects of the affordability crisis that has impacted ourseducators and our schools.

we want to be able to stabilize, we want to make sure that our schools have stable schools, so our teachers can be able to provide a good, quality education. and to this we ask you to support this trailing legislation. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> commissioners, with the council of community housing organizations. in support of this legislation. it's a great moment coming out of the elections. and with the overwhelming support that voters had for proposition e, 75% of voters not only supported proposition e, but i think showed san franciscans that the city as a whole, the west side, the entire richmond district overwhelmingly, over two-thirds supported proposition e, supported increasing density, supported seeing educator

housing in their neighborhoods. this particular piece of legislation allows a little bit of greater flexibility. i think one of the things that's important as background, one of the first projects that we're seeing as educator housing, francis scott key, was metropolitan to be a project to attract new teachers to come to san francisco and to become educators here. that particular project has a lower amount of three-bedroom units than i think what many of us contemplate in the long-term. one of the things i wanted to thank the city for having such great open data. i love going into the open data s.f. and finding out, you know, what we've actually built in san francisco as affordable, family housing. so when you look at that data set and commissioner melgar probably knows some of this from her o.c.d. days. over 60% -- i think it's 65% of the units built as affordable

family housing are two bedrooms and larger. 35% of the units that we've built are three bedrooms and larger, when we're talking about families, when we're talking about wanting families to remain in san francisco, we have to look long-term and not just design those smaller buildings that, you know, frankly often times make sense for market-rate developers who have a different agenda. so i think it's important to both be flexible, but also think about what we're trying to build in the long-term. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. martine. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. san francisco labor council. on behalf of the labor council, i'm happy to say we strongly support this legislation. working families are getting squeezed out of san francisco every day. this legislation will allow for real, affordable housing to be built in san francisco. and it will be built for the union. we absolutely support this

legislation and encourage you to support it as well. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. cory smith on behalf of the action coalition. officially obviously in support of this legislation here as well. and i think the thing that we're most excited about is how much the conversation usually shifted, really over the last two or three years, specifically about the density, in this case on the west side of san francisco. and what it actually means for every part of san francisco to do their fair share. and so for all of the people that were involved in this, not only this piece of legislation, but everything else in just increasing that conversation, making people more aware and making sure that everybody understood what our current zoning actually allows us to do and not do in san francisco. so, you know, we want this to be successful. we want to continue to look for

more things to make equity density -- the other way around maybe. yeah. you mean what i know, across the city. we're just enthusiastic about it. thank you to everybody involved. and to supervisor fewer's office for their leadership. thank you. >> thank you, mr. smith. any other public comment on this item? >> hello, commissioners. peter cohen, council community housing organizations. since fernando came up, i feel i need to come up, too. we really are excited about the passing of proposition e. you heard from folks in the labor community, housing, sponsors, from the supervisor's offices. this is -- this is a whole new opportunity. i know we're here talking about a very, very specific piece represented just to educator housing. but taking a moment for you all to consider in many ways how your jobs just got easier. because all of the rezoning

foresight throughout the entire city, for affordable housing, has been taken care of. [ please stand by ] when we find the opportunity sih that with money and we have prog

forward. i hope we are going to have coms full of people who are wanting e projects forward over the line r neighborhoods. very confident that is where we. and this measure makes it easie. i know you are big champions of. i'm talking to the choir here. but thank you for that. and there will be more coming f. and thanks for supporting this t legislation. >> thank you, mr. cohen. any other public comments on th? with that, public comment is cl. >> thanks very much to the supee and thank you very much to supes office. i make a motion to approve. >> second. >> seeing nothing further. there is a motion that has beeno approve this planning code amen. on that motion.

[roll call vote] so moved. that motion passes unanimously . item 14 for the plan bay area il presentation. >> good afternoon. joshua with planning staff. i'm here to give you a brief inl presentation on plan bay area ae specifically, potential updatesn francisco's designations for pry development areas, priority cons and priority production areas. so if i could have the slides u. so just in brief, plan bay areae regional plan. it covers a span of 30 years.

it covers the entire nine count. it's conducted by agencies thats a part of called the san franci. the regional plan is a requirem- it's required to meet various sl laws and must be updated every . and it basically has to projectn might grow over the 30-year perf housing and jobs and specificale mandates, ab32 to address greens reduction targets and how we aro that by linking land use and trd accommodate the housing needs or the next 30 years. and so from a land use standpoie of this plan is the goal is thal share is to make sure the regiol outward further, doesn't gobblee

greenland and open space and coo consolidate around the part of . we ask for three designations te efforts. priority development areas, whit are good at a local level for ag and job growth. priority conservation areas, thf that, wild lands, areas the rego prioritize at a regional scale n and recreation and a new categoy introduced this year called prin areas, which really reflect a lk we've been doing to preserve pds important places to continue toe collar jobs where they pay goodd support the region's economy. here's a map showing as it stane priority development areas and y conservation areas around the r. the map on the left, the dark ge

areas that local jurisdictions s priority development areas and u can see the conservation areas e slots of open spaces around the. the priority development areas d around the inner bay. this is a map of san francisco'i go nateed priority development . the map hasn't changed much ovee eight years. the designations are nominated f supervisors and then forwarded e planning department to the regi. as you see our current designaty cleave clearly to an east-west e the east side is designated prit and only the southwest corners e is designated as a priority dev. these largely follow where we hs over the last 20 years. but it also includes other neigt have not been rezoned.

you can see the northeast quadrd pda as well as the mission corry down to the county line there. so what is a pda? it's an urbanized area that's gg growth. the region created a couple diss that are transit rich that havet access but a new emphasis that s high-resource areas, areas thatt of jobs, have a lot of jobs, mat a lot of housing. and also have good access to god parks and other neighborhood amt people ought to have the opport. but first and foremost, they arl to the region that we are havins about planning, that we are takn to think about housing in these. we are not a top-down imposed de region. the region has no land use conty

local jurisdiction. the way this is implemented fros through incentives primarily. the regional agencies provide gt planning in these areas. they provide grants for transpon investment. and they generally structure ths financial resources around suppg these areas. this is a good segue from the ps conversation around finding mond housing and support housing in e city where we think it's importe the kind of resources we want tp into. and with these designations we t because it's a signal that we ag housing in these areas but pdasn override of local control. it's not a decree about what zon areas should be issued and shou. and it doesn't bind the city toy particular thing in an area thad the region recognize as a pda.

specific growth targets for pdae certain mandates. we can plan as we choose to pla. as long as we are showing a gooo accommodate housing growth to sn these pdas that's what the regi. all zones treated equally. what's good for one part of pdao carry across the entire pda or n different pdas. so the region is trying to get s to step up more and recognize me highly accessible parts of the s of transit and jobs for pdas. this map is something the regiod showing which really transit pan have been designated as pd as ae not. san francisco has the largest ay city that is transit rich that t recognized as pdas. you can see part of the south bn

francisco, we have a lot of job. we have a lot of good amenities. they are places of opportunity g recognized as good places for he region would like to see more hy across the region and across sa. so why extend pdas? just to reemphasize some of thet made, it provides us access to e want to support housing growth f the city, it gives us access too transportation money. and there's not a lot of downsi. it's also a signal that we are e conversations. we are taking local action, we d up planning and not waiting forr someone else to give that to us. and lastly equity, this is somen talking about a lot today in bos items. all parts -- housing is an intee and is a responsibility all pary share in finding the right solug

our housing needs. and right now the map we have io shows it's only the east side's. but that is changing. attitude is changing. and there's an awakening to they that all parts of the city, allr districts, all quarters have a o figure out a housing story thate neighborhoods. and so the map before you is a o expand the pdas in san francisce before the board of supervisorst couple months. for their consideration. it shows expansion of pdas to ie significant parts of all supervs including the three or four thad today include pdas in district t one, district four that includel the major transit corridors in . but again, these boundaries ares and where we might adopt plan oa

signal that these areas generaly are places that we are going tog ongoing conversations about houn tap into resources to support tg conversations and ultimately hod transportation investment. the priority conservation areasa lot of priority conservation arn francisco. we are not napa. we don't have large slots of und but we have regionally significs we ought to recognize and need . there's a number of areas partir shoreline both the bay and oceae city is looking to invest and in space and at a significant leveg the central waterfront, india be merced, golden gate park is goin ongoing investment as we build . golden gate park is the open sp,

as well as planning opportunitie connections in parts of the cite don't have a lot of open space n parts of the city. but we've increased better acce. this is a map of where those prt be. lastly, priority production aref buried on this map. the area around the creek and jt that's colored blue on this mape industrial area, stretches intol waterfront. it's the city's most significanr area. it's our most important industr. we are proud to nominate this ay area. and i think we want to recognizn pdr preservation around the reg. so we would like to nominate th. so just closing out, the procesa nomination the board of supervit by resolution to the region.

there's a planning department sd resolution that's been introducd of supervisors and they'll be tn the next month or to. and by mid-january we would neee board's final action to the reg. so that concludes my presentati. i'll take my questions. >> thank you. we will now take public comment. if anyone wishes to provide pub, please do so now. i have one speaker card. ilene. but anyone else who wishes to se up. >> ilene from the west side, ale outside lands. i have attended two presentation the development of priority are. the presentations contain what e questionable statements. both presentations went to greao applaud the benefits of pdas fo. however it was stated that othet nominating pdas so mta would be,

unquote, to, quote, unquote, pr. other statements were that pdas, unquote, a symbolic suggestion , unquote, theoretically suggestit development, that the city had,, baggage from its job growth and, unquote, an extravagant quoting. most questionable were statemeng inside information about the ne. the pdas would protect the citye legislation through a, quote, ul plan alternative position. these statements were deleted fe subsequent presentation. the current proposal seeks to ps without any in depth analysis or effectiveness. the mission district, for exampa for 12 years. it is my understanding that thes

who believe the pdas are a faild their pda designation should be. rather than defending local cond dare the city to reassert localy removing all current and proposa designations. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> peter cohen, counsel of comm. i may take a different perspectn the previous speaker and others. but i think this is relate to pd what we just talked about. and we are quite familiar with t they do and don't do and what sd and what signals they could sen. i think the experience of a lots on the east side of san francise first created was it sent a sign for market rate development bus. and that's one of the things thy accelerated the gentrification y

mitigations or thoughtfulness. it was just a big green light. and i don't think anybody wantst for other neighborhoods of the . that was a failed signal. but it could be done constructiy smartly, which is this is a sigs between planning and change thay driven. and i quote from staff and i'm e them on their words, pdas are ae are taking local action, that's. it is not a top down designatio. it is not an override of local t is not a decree of what zoning . if they are a signal that the ce communities that are there and p from the elected level leading,o figure out how to plan new commw and change and welcome things, . if we are going to look at throy

lens and affordability lens andy process, great. if it's a signal we are open toa big mistake. the second thing related to thaa position as a department of sup. and it would seem to be highly o want to support the expansion oe same areas that are going to bet affected by sb50, which is sendy different signal. sb50 is about top-down designat. it is about saying by decree whs where. it does move control and partice local to the state. like it or not, some people in e sb50. but it is an entirely contradico what you just heard from staff e resolution sitting before you. i suggest you consider supportie

right approach to doing communid change and take a position, frag sb50 in the ways that it doesn's proposal. this should be amended into sb5s position. i think you would have a win/wi. >> thank you, mr. cohen. next speaker, please. >> rick hall, cultural action n. i'm a bit confused about this wg especially after peter because a city were opposing sb50. [off mic] that we as a city are. and that's sort of my reason thd oppose this thing too. this thing that's being presentt of like what they are doing to . they are saying, oh, top down, u do it to yourself, we won't havo

you. so i would suggest that plannint peter cohen said, do a very goog what this is going to be befores go forward in approving expansi. maybe we need a few expansion o. we need to withdraw some too. this is a signal. we sent a bad signal last time. the mission and east side of tht decimated with market rate housd gentrification, et cetera. let's not do the same thing to f the city. equity isn't geographic equity,t side of the city too. equity is building a plan that e equity stuff you talked about td gets built what needs to be bui.

and that is not market-rate houf signals, tons of market-rate hot more and more techies to come hf i the rest of the city. so this really needs thinking ae planning department before the n considers sending the signal. this as it's being presented isg signal. this could be used to set the p. one piece of that signal may bee mission from pda. maybe we put a whole new catego? maybe we reimpose the priority . because we talked this morning y stuff about jobs and building je folks. well, they also have to have a y

to do those jobs and the missioy was until this and eastern neign and umu displaced our pdr. so we made a big mistake in the. let's not make it elsewhere. and let's bring back some priorn areas. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon again. cory smith on behalf of the sano housing action coalition. certainly excited to see the cir western and outlying neighborhoe the transit infrastructure curr, signaling where we need to conte investments both operationally f numbers of tracks out on the ciy begin to expand and say, okay, t growth look like on the west sin

francisco, where can we add hou. and just as a reminder, market n and of itself is a public good. another word to describe that ar people. the significant majority of peon francisco live in market-rate h. the significant majority of lown san francisco live in market-ra. and the more market-rate housine more affordable housing we can e time. they go hand in hand. it is not an either or strategy. and fortunately nobody in san fs that what we should be doing isg everything without having a cont what sort of additional communid to be driven through affordabler additional fees we can have to r transit infrastructure and makee money for our schools and sewer. it has to be a comprehensive aps the strategy we want to have. about four years ago there was a